Expansion of School Choice | Senate Education, 10.7.2026

Estimated Time to Read: 4 minutes

Texas Policy Research submitted the following written testimony to all members of the Texas Senate Committee on Education ahead of its interim hearing.

• Committee: Senate Committee on Education
• Hearing Date: October 7, 2026
• Context: 89th Legislature, Interim
• Subject: Celebrating the Successful Rollout of School Choice
• Position: Informational
• Texas Liberty Compact: Enable Truly Universal School Choice
• Submitted By: Jeramy Kitchen
• Entity: Texas Policy Research Action (TPRA)

The text below reproduces the testimony as submitted to the committee.
The submitted document linked above is the authoritative version.

Chairwoman Campbell and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the implementation of Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) and the future of educational choice in Texas.

The initial demand for education savings accounts confirms something Texas families have communicated for years: parents want greater authority over where and how their children are educated. Families differ in their educational needs, values, circumstances, and expectations. No single institution or government system can serve every child equally well.

The passage of SB 2 represented a significant political breakthrough. However, the success of school choice should not be measured solely by application totals, press releases, or the administrative launch of a new government program. It should be measured by whether Texas families can actually exercise meaningful and durable educational choice.

A program can offer broad eligibility in statute while remaining unavailable to many families in practice. Appropriation limits, eligibility priorities, administrative restrictions, and insufficient account values can prevent eligible families from participating. When demand substantially exceeds available funding, the program is not yet truly universal.

The Legislature should move Texas toward a system in which education funding follows students rather than institutions. That should include expanding access to education savings accounts, but the long-term objective should not be the permanent operation of two increasingly expensive systems. Lawmakers should examine how existing formulas, fixed-cost assumptions, transition funding, and new account appropriations interact when a student leaves the public system. The goal should be to fund the education of children without unnecessarily preserving duplicative costs or creating another permanently expanding layer of government spending.

Expansion must also avoid becoming an excuse for greater government control over private schools, homeschool families, tutors, curriculum providers, or other participants. Families often leave the government-run system precisely because they seek something different. Program participation should not gradually subject private educational institutions to the same mandates, testing structures, curriculum controls, or administrative burdens that apply to public schools.

Accountability should focus on parental responsibility, transparency, lawful use of public funds, and prevention of fraud. Parents should receive clear information about providers, pricing, services, and program rules. Taxpayers should receive understandable reports on applications, awards, waiting lists, expenditures, administrative costs, geographic participation, denied claims, appeals, and unused funds. Transparency should help families and lawmakers evaluate the program without creating a regulatory apparatus that determines which educational philosophies the state considers acceptable.

Lawmakers should also examine whether account values allow families of modest means to participate meaningfully. A nominal benefit does little for a family if tuition, transportation, therapy, instructional materials, or specialized services remain unaffordable. The enrolled legislation provides different account values for different categories of participants, making it important to determine whether those amounts provide meaningful access in practice. At the same time, simply increasing appropriations without reforming the broader education funding system risks creating another permanently expanding government program.

The Texas Liberty Compact calls for truly universal school choice. That requires more than limited access to a capped state account. It requires a durable commitment to parental authority, educational pluralism, fiscal responsibility, and the principle that education funding exists to educate children, not to preserve institutions.

The 90th Legislature should build upon SB 2 by expanding access, reducing unnecessary restrictions, protecting private educational independence, controlling administrative costs, and beginning the transition toward a system in which funding follows every Texas student.

Parents should not need political influence, geographic luck, or success in an oversubscribed process to direct their child's education. Educational freedom should belong to every Texas family.

Thank you for your consideration.

---

Sources

• Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), 89th Legislative Session (2025)
• Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Education Freedom Accounts program reporting

Related TPR Work

• TPR Bill Analysis: Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), 89th Legislative Session (2025)
• Strong Demand for School Choice Meets Structural Limits in Texas, April 2026
• Texas Releases First Education Freedom Accounts Report, August 2026
• Texas Education Freedom Accounts Begin Funding Students, July 2026
• Texas School Choice at a Crossroads, March 2026
• HB 2: A Massive Expansion of Government-Run Education, March 2025

For all TPR work on this subject, see our Education topic page.

---